Biden ‘Promoting Abortion’ by Omitting Legal Protection for ‘Unborn Child’

Joe Biden is being accused of trying to advance his abortion agenda by erasing protections for the “unborn child” from the law.

Literally, just taking the words in the law that provide for protections for an “unborn child” out of the law.

It is Joshua McCaig, the founding president of the Catholic Bar Association and a board member of the Catholic Health Care Leadership Alliance, who explained in a column at The Federalist Biden is trying to accomplish his newest promotion of abortion by demanding that hospitals and doctors provide abortions during “emergencies” under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

TRENDING: Amid porn debate, Jill Biden makes a stunning remark on school libraries

That is being manipulated by the government because of Biden’s executive order that demanded the Department of Health and Human Services find ways to promote abortion after the Supreme Court, in its Dobbs decision, struck down the faulty Roe v. Wade precedent.

McCaig explained, “HHS then published a memorandum providing guidance on the obligations of health care professionals under EMTALA to patients who are pregnant, and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra sent a letter to health care professionals stating that ‘if a physician believes that a pregnant patient presenting at an emergency department, including certain labor and delivery departments, is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by the EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide the treatment.’ This guidance effectively requires any physician, regardless of personal beliefs and conscience considerations, to perform an intentional abortion.”

But McCaig noted that EMTALA was created to ensure the health of both the pregnant mother and the unborn child.

“Enacted in 1986, EMTALA addressed ‘patient dumping,’ a term to describe a situation where a patient who is uninsured or unable to pay is prematurely discharged or sent to another facility before being evaluated and stabilized. Pregnant women in labor were specifically contemplated in this law, as women without insurance who presented to a hospital in labor were being inappropriately denied care or transferred to another facility leading, in certain circumstances, to injury or death of the mother or unborn child,” he explained.

So the law was written “to protect both the mother and the unborn child, and the unambiguous language of the statute requires health care professionals to take into consideration the life and health of the unborn child. EMTALA defines ’emergency medical condition as a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in — (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy … (B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions — (i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or (ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.'”

McCaig noted that the law itself specifically requires the consideration of the health of the “unborn child.”

“Yet HHS’s guidance memorandum completely removes any mention of ‘unborn child’ in its summary of what an emergency medical condition is,” he said. “The only way that the administration and HHS can make an EMTALA argument is to completely disregard the fact that EMTALA creates responsibilities and duties to the unborn child. This is a fact that they are attempting to ignore, and they are willing to sacrifice the conscience rights of thousands of health care professionals nationally in the process.”

He pointed out that faith-based organizations and individuals now are fighting to protect their right to act according to that law, and their religious rights, and multiple court cases have been launched.

In fact, the Idaho legislature wrote to a judge, B. Lynn Winmill in one case pointing out, “Congress drew its line to protect both the mother and the unborn child in an emergency medical situation. By contrast, the administration draws its line to eliminate all protection for the unborn child in such situations. It did so by a simple expedient — it silently erased ‘or her unborn child’ from all DOJ filings.”

A judge in Texas already has issued a preliminary injunction against HHS in a case there. Judge James W. Hendrix noted that the statute specifically calls for the protection of both the pregnant woman and the unborn child.

McCaig described the Biden campaign as “nothing more than a political ploy to use EMTALA in an unconstitutional manner to terminate the life of an unborn child that EMTALA was unambiguously created to protect.”

Latest News